November 28, 2012

What Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi enjoined in the spring of 2011 was the publication of Act 10, and not Act 10 itself nor any of its provisions (the "substance" of the law). Act 10 had already been enacted. The legislative process was completed. There was nothing left for the legislature to do. What remained for Act 10 was purely administrative. Bear that in mind during the inevitable storm of right-wing bullshit* should Judge Sumi decide to run against Roggensack.

August 2, 2012

Wisconsin Republicans fought tooth and nail to keep this correspondence out of federal court, to the point of Eric McLeod being personally fined, and these emails went straight to the heart of the issues under litigation so it's difficult to believe they were overlooked, especially as they represent a contentious disagreement between the lead attorneys.

I am also confident that Justice Gableman understood the nature of the arguments being made for his recusal and, in fact, made clear that he based his decision on "the circumstances of the case ... and the submissions of the parties."

'Because he said so,' offers Prof. Rick of Gableman, who doesn't exactly enjoy a reputation for honesty, having been prosecuted by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission for lying about another judge's professional record.

If Prof. Rick is so confident now that Gableman "understood the nature of the arguments being made," where was his confidence that Gableman understood the procedural history of State v. Reuben Lee Mitchell?

If Prof. Rick's level of confidence in the latter equaled his present confidence in Gableman's profound understanding, then Prof. Rick would have to admit that Gableman knew full well that he was baldly lying during his political campaign in 2008. But you'll never hear that from Prof. Rick, whose own partisan expediencies regularly trump whatever pretense to principled scholarship he's apparently duped the Journal-Sentinel into accepting. That farce is worse than the sloppy writing.

* Translation: Fiercely partisan Republican, in keeping with the Judicial Commission's mandate to "maintain public confidence in the judiciary."

Uh huh.

"When they introduced themselves, three of the nominees referred to their long-term marriages as qualifications to serve on the Commission. One of these, Eileen Burnett of De Pere, spoke at some length of her experience as a homemaker and expert in abstinence education. What she didn’t mention was her record of donating $5,350 directly to Republican campaigns over the past eight years." — Rebecca Kemble

Although Justice Gableman's Order claims that he "considered the circumstances of this case" and "the submissions of the parties," I conclude that nothing in Justice Gableman’s Order demonstrates that Justice Gableman actually considered the submissions of the District Attorney. Rather, because Justice Gableman's Order either intentionally or inadvertently misstates the grounds of the District Attorney's motion, the Order contains no reasoned basis for the Justice's conclusion that his recusal is "neither warranted nor justified."

The Order inaccurately asserts that the District Attorney seeks recusal because "the Michael Best & Friedrich firm was involved in the cases and had previously represented me." Actually, as I have stated previously, the District Attorney explained in the initial and supplemental filings that he seeks recusal not because Justice Gableman has been personally represented by Michael Best, but rather because Justice Gableman received allegedly free legal services from Michael Best.

Yet, nowhere in Justice Gableman’s Order is there any reference to payment (or absence of payment) for legal services, the fee arrangement with Michael Best, free legal services, a gift of legal services, or valuable consideration for the fee arrangement. None of these words, or any synonyms, appears in the Order.

In other words, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's so-called "conservatives" continue to rule by fiat and Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman hasn't changed a bit in terms of his "deliberate or accidental" misrepresentations.

After all, those are how Mike Gableman got elected in the first place.

However, those were more deliberate and deliberative than accidental misrepresentations, as Mike Gableman himself admitted. Indeed if they were accidental misrepresentations then failure to understand a relatively straightforward appellate case should have disqualified him from the State of Wisconsin's highest appeals court right off the bat.

Wisconsin Republicans must be real proud of this character. But nobody else should be proud of what he's done to the reputation of this court.

PolitiFact grants Willard "Mitt" Rmoney a "Mostly True" for misrepresenting a decision of the Supreme Court because Rmoney is a politician: "PolitiFact focuses on political speech rather than legal speech and judged by that standard Romney is pretty close to accurate."

[Willard "Mitt" Rmoney] is managing to turn the only possible silver lining in Chief Justice John Roberts's ObamaCare salvage operation—that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty is really a tax—into a second political defeat.

First of all, the Supreme Court didn't say that buying insurance was a tax. And it barely said the penalty for not buying insurance was a tax, only that the penalty was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to tax, and one that was well supported by a host of federal precedent.

As the Chief Justice put it for one majority of the Court:

Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage.

And what the WSJ editorial mandarins refer to as a "salvage operation" was in fact an exercise of the Court's deference to the will of the elected legislature, the exercise of which in other circumstances Republicans who claim to be "judicial conservatives" rejoice over.

This time they just don't like the result that it led to, in the latest example of why such claims to "judicial conservatism" are fraudulent.

July 3, 2012

Perhaps because the gun law has three exceptions to the prohibitions on carrying, and the law says "any" of them apply. In one exception, the law says a judge has the power to grant — or not grant — permission to conceal-carry licensees and in another exception the law says a DA can conceal-carry in court.

Because "any" of the exceptions apply, the judges chose the one that inconveniences the DA, and the judge has quite a bit more stroke in the courtroom than has the DA. For example a judge can tell a DA in her courtroom to sit down, be quiet, stop being such a dick, etc.

The Supreme Court wrote just a few months ago that a petition for a supervisory writ won't be accepted unless the lower court's duty is "plain" and the alleged violation by the subordinate court judge is "clear."

I don't think either of those elements are present here.

Furthermore if the court did accept this petition, it would potentially be in the position of having to contradict itself on the questions of supervisory and original jurisdiction — these are two separate grants of power to the court in the Wisconsin constitution and the Wisconsin statutes — for the third time in roughly one year.

What I find amusing is that the court combined these two separate grants of authority in its Act 10 decision in June, 2011, and a few months later laid down the law with respect to the high burden — the "clear" and the "plain" bits — of establishing its supervisory jurisdiction, which the "conservative" majority itself clearly had not done in the petition against Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi.

The attorney(s) who drafted this petition recognize the distinction between supervisory and original jurisdiction, hence the "or in the alternative" language and the separate references to 809.70 and 809.71 (the distinction between which was also discussed at this blog pursuant to some nonsense that was published at the Marquette Law School Faculty blog by a young Federalist Society pinhead).

June 28, 2012

[T]he judicial discipline statutes, Wis. Stat. § 757.81 through § 757.99 (2009-10), do not require this court to act at this stage in the proceedings. . . . At this point, the statutes direct the chief judge of the court of appeals to select a judicial conduct panel.

June 19, 2012

And unfortunately for Robin Vos, fraud requires intent, which must be proven, and Robin Vos hasn't proven it, so he's simply lying about it.

"I still think that in many ways the election was illegitimate," he said. "To have a recall where someone is going to be serving for the next two years but use the old district lines seems like kind of a rigged setup.

Which is funny, because that is how Robin Vos's party wrote and passed the law, so that the new districts wouldn't take effect until November.

June 18, 2012

Also, naturally. I hope they lose but if not, the expression "law enforcement officer" is broadened to include defense attorneys.

Why shouldn't it? Equal protection and all that, figuratively and literally. Defense counsel appears in court for the same reasons, to ensure the law is enforced within the boundaries of the various constitutions.

Given the preponderance of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, an unlucky defendant is just as likely to shoot his own lawyer as the ADA.*

Possibly even more likely.

* The conflict is between sub. 3 and sub. 2, wherein permission to carry in the courtroom is required from the presiding judge, as it should be.
Perhaps Mr. Gossett and his subordinates are free to strut around with their handguns in the courtroom so long as the court is not in session.

June 6, 2012

June 5, 2012

Asked for evidence of "voter fraud" — which both Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus claim accounts for several tens of thousands of ballots in every election in the State, up to 2% of millions — Wisconsin GOP senator Glenn Grothman stated there's a "feeling" out there that there is. Seriously.

It's true. Libertarian Jesus calls us to break the law, violate the constitution, and invent jurisdiction by Republican fiat. And of course Libertarian Jesus says 'No' to collective bargaining. It's in the Bible.

Never mind that Abraham Lincoln's context was the emancipation and restoration of full and equal civil rights for black African slaves according to the promise of the American Declaration of Independence. But that's Scott Walker for you, a pious fraud with a six-figure criminal defense fund derived from political contributions, who's only ever drawn a salary from the tax dollars he professes to detest. After an entire life spent as a career politician, it's about time for Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to gain some experience in the private sector. Do send him there today.

Don't worry, he won't starve, and he'll hardly have to do any actual work.

[Wisconsin governor Scott] Walker said he put money [$160,000] into the [criminal] defense fund so that he could provide thousands of documents to Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, who is heading the [criminal] investigation.

Walker also says he "will not use campaign funds to pay for the criminal defense of his aides." That's a blinding glimpse of the obvious, as the statute authorizing Walker's criminal defense fund says nothing of "aides," but rather "agent[s]," and if he was using the fund to defend his aides who are not agents, then that use of the fund would be illegal.

Reportedly there is about a 50/50 chance that Wisconsinites on Tuesday will return to office a governor "who is being investigated for, charged with or convicted of a criminal violation." That's seriously messed up.

May 31, 2012

"Typically, a secrecy order covers questions asked, answers given, transcripts of the proceedings, exhibits produced during the proceedings, or other matters observed or heard in the secret session at a John Doe proceeding," according to an article on the Wisconsin Bar Association website by Marcus J. Berghahn, a criminal defense attorney with experience in such cases.

[I]f the [John Doe] proceeding is secret, the record of the proceeding and the testimony taken shall not be open to inspection by anyone except the district attorney ...

Call me a strict constructionist/judicial conservative but I don't see anything in there about "exhibits produced during the proceedings."

Exhibits aren't testimony. Similarly it's been argued that 'typically' the Wis. Supreme Court appoints a three-judge panel to hear judicial discipline cases. That practice is unauthorized by State statute as well.

Indeed, it's directly contrary to State statutes. Not to come over all philosophical, but what is the point of having statutes? Would it work better if we wrote them in a language unfamiliar to English speakers?

Whoever writes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's headlines is quite the comedian. Reince Priebus, the ridiculous chairman of the Republican National Committee, tells an outright lie — that there are tens of thousands of fraudulent votes cast in the State of Wisconsin — and the Journal-Sentinel calls it an "allegation" that is merely "disputed."

"We need to do a [percentage] point or two better than where we think we need to be, to overcome it," sez R. Priebus, so you know what's coming if Tom Barrett edges Scott Walker* in the election next Tuesday.

More baseless lies dressed up as "allegations" by the local paper, which has made something of a habit of legitimating right-wing propaganda.

* Walker is quoted as saying he has no "'reason to agree or disagree' with Priebus' comments," but just the other day he was saying exactly the same thing as Priebus. At least they could keep their lies consistent.

Obviously he has a "reason to agree" if the pair are on the same page.

These clowns depend on popular stupidity — in turn fortified by disingenuous newspaper editors — in order to flourish. Wake up ffs.

May 29, 2012

May 27, 2012

Where does the word Sodomy or Sodomites come from and what does it mean— Sodom and Gomorrah were cities where Homosexuality was rampant and was destroyed and is a reminder to us today that the lifestyle is wrong. BTW— Do you think for a second we will not be judged the same if we allow gay marriage— Marriage is an institution created by the ALL MIGHTY and that means HE has the final word— We are fortunate God hasn't allowed us to be destroyed for domestic partnership status ... Y'all have a nice day and GO SCOTT WALKER !!! — Nascarfan

I'm not certain that anal sex is exclusive to same-sex couples, but whatever. Attempted reasoning is a waste of time with these folks.

To establish a legal defense fund ... [i]t is only necessary that your conduct is being investigated for potential criminal violations of the pertinent laws.

Ah, so as the governor has in fact established a legal defense fund, ergo the governor is being investigated for crimes: the "pertinent" ones being, incidentally, felonies. That means they carry prison sentences.*

That's good to know! Because Walker is up for reelection in a couple of weeks. And the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which hosts Prof. Rick's legal lessons,** thinks you should return to office a governor who's being investigated for felony crimes.
But wait! Right after he just got done establishing his "only necessary" bar, Prof. Rick appears to lower it a bit:

Nor is it even necessary for Scott Walker to be the one who is being investigated. If the agent of a candidate or a public official is being investigated, he or she can establish a fund.

Prof. Rick isn't being terribly clear here, is he? I mean, for a Marquette University professor of teh law. Who is the "he or she"? Is it the agent?

Nope, it's the candidate or public official, Scott Walker (who is both).

And, being a rather coy professor of the law, Prof. Rick doesn't want to tell you what an agent is, in the legal sense of the expression. Maybe he forgot to, after all his nattering about "partisan panic" and "proctological examination[s]."*** Well, I'll tell you: An agent is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of the principal. The principal, in this case, is Scott Walker. And the agent could be one of several individuals already implicated — or soon to be implicated — in the Milwaukee County DA's investigation. Funny Prof. Rick wouldn't tell you what an agent is, huh?

Because the thing is, if the agent mentioned in the statute wasn't authorized to act by Scott Walker, then she or he is no agent at all.

Evidently Prof. Rick was seized by his own partisan panic and clenched sphincter, because for the purposes of the relevant statutes the public official and the agent(s) are one and the same, given that the authorization to act is bestowed upon the agent(s) by the public official.

"Much ado about nothing," harrumphs Prof. Rick.

Well sure it is, when you simply ignore a substantive legal term of art.

Too cute by half, this character is. God help his law students, if they're absorbing any of his special brand of Republican Party disingenuousness.

*** "Elevating the discussion," is what they call this. The elevating in this instance, assumedly, is Prof. Rick's characterization of his adversaries' heads elevated up their asses: respectful debate. Thanks for that, MJS.

May 23, 2012

"I understand that Barrett is apparently privy to the entire investigation — contrary to the law." — blargher Owen Robinson*

"Is Barrett too stupid to understand what 'John Doe' means?," wonders leading Wisconsin conservative Republican blargher Owen Robinson of Milwaukee mayor and Democratic candidate for governor Tom Barrett, who's called for the incumbent Scott Walker to release emails from Walker's secret system, which isn't a secret any more. "The whole [John Doe] proceeding is legally bound to be secret," claims the top blargher.

That's simply not true.

The examination of any witnesses identified by the district attorney to the presiding judge may be secret,** say the statutory provisions governing John Doe proceedings; secrecy is at the discretion of the presiding judge and in any event the judge's authority to impose secrecy is limited to the witnesses' testimony and the record of the proceeding.

That is, the judge may impose secrecy with respect to testimony about the emails during the examination of witnesses at the proceeding, but he has no authority to impose secrecy orders upon Scott Walker's interoffice emails themselves. Therefore it's perfectly appropriate — and not at all "too stupid" — for Tom Barrett to demand that Scott Walker produce his formerly secret — the former secrecy of which has nothing to do with the discretionary secrecy given the judge — correspondence.

Stupider still is O. Robinson's claim that Barrett is "privy to the entire investigation ... contrary to the law." That's the sort of assertion, which strongly implies unlawful actions on the part of either Barrett or those investigators subject to the actual secrecy orders of the judge, that its speaker needs to provide either testimony or evidence in furtherance of.

But obviously top Wisconsin blargher Owen Robinson is in possession of neither such evidence nor such testimony. It's just a stupid thing to say.

And it's precisely those manifestly irresponsible and baseless accusations that Janine Geske et altook to the papers to thoroughly debunk.

Meanwhile blargher Robinson wonders if others are stupid? How droll.

The right-wing's tedious assertions that there are "leaks" coming from the John Doe investigation into several of Walker's political cronies — and perhaps Walker himself — are popular among the local conservative contingent, yet not one of them has ever provided even one example. But they believe whatever they want to believe, contrary to the reality.

However, that's nothing new, and is most certainly no secret.

* See also our friend John Foust's Owen Robinson parody site, Boots and Kittens, still the funniest blog in Wisconsin: "Follow the logic."

May 22, 2012

I took down my post on Elizabeth Warren plagiarizing from the book Getting On the Money Track. On Amazon.com, the Warren book All Your Worth is listed as having been published January 9, 2006. As it turns out, that is the paperback publication date; the hardback book was published in March 2005. As such, it appears that Getting on the Money Track (published in October 2005) plagiarized from All Your Worth, not the other way around.

There is no way that the man's wife does not have a huge effect on the conduct of the [John Doe] investigation. A man has needs and a wife with a husband that has a powerful position that can control the outcome of a political prosecution and doesn't do what his wife desires will not be seeing those needs met any time soon. This is certainly a much worse conflict of interest than even the signing of a recall petition. The sex drive is very powerful and being cut off by the wife is certain to induce bias into the case.

On the other hand, perhaps David Haynes and his friends on the daily paper's editorial board are to be commended for providing a platform to let conservatives make themselves look as foolish as humanly possible.**

Sunny Schubert, incidentally, is the same one who inaugurated Haynes's project with the admonition, "Dems should shut up." Yes indeed. Just kick back and marvel at Sunny Schubert's comic lack of self-awareness.

* A lot of these folks suffer from mental illnesses, so Sunny Schubert's Republican ravings are more insidious and heartless than they appear.

Not that that should come as any surprise, where one of the Grand Old Party's current golden boys is an enthusiastic disciple of Ayn Rand.

** The one who is to be commended is Caryl Davis — whose name the Journal-Sentinel's editors can't even spell correctly: they advertise her as "Carol" Davis — who made one post and apparently fled the scene.

This guy filed a formal complaint against Prosser two months ago and he's still stuck on "apparently"? "Apparently," Mr. Gimbel's done little more than look at the Supreme Court's online dockets for a few prior Judicial Commission cases — including two which were filed against Prosser's Republican Party colleagues, Justice Annette Ziegler and Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman; that makes three out of four Republicans* on the court being the respondents in formal disciplinary actions — and was seeing the word "order" at the left hand side of the docket notations.

That isn't law. That isn't even doctrine. And it isn't even past practice, as former Justice Janine Geske points out in the same Shepherd Express article, it's a "referral," a mere acknowledgement. It's like an entry on an accounting ledger. According to Mr. Gimbel, Richard S. Brown, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals who is mandated by State statute to convene the three-judge panel which is to hear the Commission's case, is "waiting for an order from the Supreme Court before proceeding."

I hope he's not holding his breath because there ain't no such thing. The Supreme Court has no authority anywhere to withhold an order that doesn't exist in — nor is even contemplated nor implied by — the law.

The operations of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's investigations and prosecutions in both ethics and disability cases are at arm's length from the Supreme Court and that arm is a detachable, detached prosthetic.

Seriously, if Gimbel hasn't gotten to the bottom of this after 60 days, it's time for the Commission to hire somebody who will do it. Hell, if David Prosser's Republican buddy Scott Fitzgerald can conjure up fake arrest warrants based on bogus premises derived from frivolous lawsuits, then somebody can compel Judge Brown to obey the clear directive of the State statutes and get on with entertaining the Prosser prosecution.

A prosecution that is separately mandated by State statute — it's one thing to disobey the law, it's another to obstruct its progress on a distinct procedural track: Here now we have both happenstances.

And Ed Fallone is correct, as usual: "[M]y guess is that they do not want to have a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issue a negative ruling against Prosser." Quite so. And they'll ignore the law to avoid it.

Even the chief judge of the Court of Appeals will ignore it. "Apparently."

What a travesty. Of the law. Courtesy of alleged judicial conservatives.

Meanwhile Justice Prosser is deciding who gets reappointed to the chair of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission at the moment Justice Prosser is the subject of a pending Wisconsin Judicial Commission prosecution.

Evidently the broad irony of Justice Prosser granting an "interview" with the editorial board to complain about Chief Justice Abrahamson's publication of a letter completely eludes the edit board's deep thinkers.

Or else they're depending on it eluding the mugs to whom they cater.

"And that word ['corrupt'] was used," bitches Justice Prosser to the Journal Communications, Inc. organ, without revealing the context, nor, apparently, do the editorialists see fit to ask for that context, as not providing it plays into the false equivalencies between the court's factions the local paper is in the business of fallaciously promoting.

How's this for a false equivalency: Three of the Supreme Court's four "conservatives" have been — or are being — prosecuted for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Among the Chief Justice and Justices N. Patrick Crooks and Ann Walsh Bradley? Zero ethics prosecutions in total.

May 14, 2012

The story claims — without substantive basis: it's not explained how the Milwaukee Public Schools reached the determination memorialized in the headline — that Kris Barrett, wife of Milwaukee mayor and candidate for Wisconsin governor Tom Barrett, violated the MPS ethics guidelines against specific politically-related activities using the MPS email system.

Follow the paper's link to right-wing creeps Media Trackers' website (like Hell I'll link to it) and compare the content of Ms. Barrett's emails with the proscribed activities. None of the emails are "contribut[ions]" either in "financial resources" or "donate[d] services," nor do any of the emails contain attachments of "political or campaign materials." Not a one.

What a crock. If it really is the case that Ms. Barrett was found in violation of MPS guidelines, and those are the proffered emails and the allegedly relevant proscriptions, then Ms. Barrett should contest that finding. Any halfway competent litigator could easily knock it down.

Or any halfway competent reader of English, for that matter.

And the reporting, by Sharif Durhams, is textbook gullible. Just awful.

It's really sad what's going on up there in your great State these days.

I know for a fact that Lori Compas has been directing her own campaign since before day one and I have the private correspondence to prove it.

Indeed, Lori Compas barely had any support — if any at all — from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin until only very recently. And she's challenged Fitzgerald to several debates, whereas he's accepted none.

May 13, 2012

Notes Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial page editor David Haynes: "Another writes regularly for a local think tank." Except three of them do, in addition to a fourth who writes regularly for WPRI, but he already has a regular column in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. What Haynes also fails to mention is that Rick Esenberg's Kulturkampf boutique law firm — which last I heard consists of Prof. Rick and Mike Gableman's former law clerk — is in essence a subsidiary of the Bradley Foundation.

And some observers may recall Prof. Rick's lojinks last spring, when he and his compadreJames Troupis filed a frivolous lawsuit in Oconto County, the distorted fruits of which they used to underpin 14 comic faux-arrest warrants against the State's Democratic Senate caucus.

May 12, 2012

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission has done its own initial investigation, having been alerted to "possible misconduct" by a Wisconsin judge, namely David Prosser. The Commission found probable cause that Justice Prosser "has engaged" in misconduct. The Commission has filed a formal complaint "with" — notably, not in — the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Now, the Judicial Commission "shall prosecute any case of misconduct ... in which it files a formal complaint." (All of these quotations are from Chapter 757 of the Wisconsin statutes, by the way). And now, "[t]he chief judge of the court of appeals shall select the judges [for the three-judge panel] and designate which shall be presiding judge."

But the Commission cannot prosecute its case until the chief judge selects the panel, which he hasn't yet done because reportedly he's waiting for an order from the Supreme Court. There is no such order mentioned, contemplated, or even implied by the Wisconsin statutes.

Why Franklyn Gimbel, who is the attorney the Commission has retained to prosecute the case, hasn't explicitly pointed this out, or taken steps to force the chief judge of the court of appeals' hand, I have no idea.

Even if it was the case that the Supreme Court "ordered" the formation of the panel in prior misconduct actions, it has no statutory authority to do so, nor, more importantly, has it any statutory authority to withhold such an "order," because such an order does not exist in the Wisconsin statutes. It could be that some members of the Supreme Court believe its supervisory authority — which is constitutionally granted — supersedes the clear directives of the statutes. I have no idea of that either, because none of them has said so, and perhaps nobody has asked them.

If any of them believe that, and if any of those are self-described "judicial conservatives," I, for one, would find that belief highly comical.

But not in the least bit surprising.

"Your precious belief that we have a government of laws in Wisconsin never fails to amuse." — @BrewCityBrawler

I don't know Mr. Dawson but I took his media law course at Marquette University Law School. He was excellent, as was his course and his method of pedagogy. I remember telling him about a Ninth Circuit case that he'd never heard of in which Evel Knievel and his wife sued ESPN for calling the daredevil motorcyclist a "pimp." The Court of Appeals threw out the Knievels' complaint because, it determined, the ESPN photo-caption writer meant it as a compliment. Mr. Dawson was still laughing about the case when I mentioned it again months later. He struck me as a pretty straight shooter and a learned attorney, not a partisan at all.*

* Incidentally this is not the same John Dawson who the idiotic wing-nuts at Media Trackers claimed signed a Recall Scott Walker petition.

May 8, 2012

How disappointing — depressing, even — to find Joel McNally, who writes an otherwise quality political column in the Milwaukee Shepherd Express, propagating this complete myth that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is somehow tasked with ordering the formation of a tribunal to assess the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's complaint against Justice David Prosser:

Nearly two months after Prosser was charged, the [Wisconsin Supreme Court] still has not been able to appoint a three-judge appeals court panel to hear evidence, decide guilt and recommend any appropriate punishment.

It doesn't need to be able to: that court has nothing whatsoever to do with appointing the panel. Why would a scribe of McNally's abilities trust the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which is presumably where McNally has obtained his premise, over the plain language of the State statutes?

A judicial conduct ... panel shall consist of either 3 court of appeals judges or 2 court of appeals judges and one reserve judge. Each judge may be selected from any court of appeals district including the potential selection of all judges from the same district. The chief judge of the court of appeals shall select the judges and designate which shall be presiding judge.

How much plainer could it be? Go ahead and read Wis. Stats. §§ 757.81 through 757.99 and show me where the Supreme Court has anything to do with the commission's or the panel's work until that work is complete.

You won't find it. The complaint is filed with the Supreme Court for one obvious reason: because that body has supervisory authority over the State judiciary and the filing of the complaint is mere notice that an action has commenced. The process described in the aforementioned statutes is unique; it's neither civil nor criminal and indeed the statutes themselves explicitly acknowledge the uniqueness of that process.

Nowhere is the Supreme Court given any authority over the formation of the appellate judge panel and indeed if the Supreme Court is denying the exercise of a chimerical authority then it is thwarting the clear directives of the statute whereby the investigative process is wholly given over to the judicial commission and the appeals court judges.

Nobody should ever trust newspaper or teevee reports of legal proceedings,* especially these days when so many original sources are available online. And certainly don't trust the Journal-Sentinel, which has even editorialized that the complaint against Justice Prosser
— whose candidacy the paper endorsed last year
— should be dropped, again, based on the demonstrably false premise that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has formative authority over the judicial conduct panel.

The Supreme Court has nothing to do until the panel has done its work and more recently we had Prosser's "conservative" ally Justice Patience Roggensackrecuse herself from a case that isn't even before her court!

The present situation is one of pure lawlessness and again I ask myself, what is the point of even posting at this blog directed to a jurisdiction where conservative media drive the political narrative and now even prominent local liberal commentators are suckered by that narrative.

I have a couple of "unfinished business" posts I want to throw down but after that, it's either back to hiatus or I'm going to find something else to write about other than this banging-your-head-against-a-wall stuff.

Via Jim Rowen, comes now Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp's Sunday evening response to yesterday's story in the State Journal about a gaggle of Republican political appointees and campaign donors connected to contaminating Jefferson County drinking water with human excrement. Stepp doesn't dispute a single word in the report and in fact claims she's going to take steps to more thoroughly identify potential conflicts of interest in the future. Despite all of those elements, Secretary Stepp's press release is shot through with fauxtrage.

What's Stepp's point, other than to take people for fools? I have no idea.

May 6, 2012

'Some justices who speak most forcefully for more prompt issuance of opinions are the very justices who are slow in circulating theirs.'

¶20 Another claim,
particularly advanced by Justice [sic] Gableman, is that "in the 13 years, the nearly 13 years that this court has been doing it, no court in the United States, no court in this country has seen it wise to emulate our practice."